Is a "digital" audio connection really better??

[videobruce]

I have a older audio receiver that works fine (other than the lousy user interface) with only analog inputs. I haven't bothered to upgrade since it would be one more piece of equipment I would have to sell since I have no other use for it. Since I wouldn't get squat for it, I have kepted it.

Coming from a HD TV, HD DVR, CD player, DVD player using an analog path to the receiver and comparing that to getting a new receiver with digital inputs is there really a difference regarding:

1. The basic 'audio' (sonic) quality: tonal range, dynamic range, imaging etc.
2. Separation and surround sound effects (I'm not using a subwoofer or center channel speakers).

I know how hyped "digital" everything is these days and I question if it is really better especially considering all the compression & processing of most sources??

 

[bpape]

Well, there are a couple things to consider.

If the player has a better DAC than the receiver, use the one in the player and send analog out.

That said, many(most) receivers reconvert (unless you use bypass or direct mode) the input back to the digital domain for any EQ, xover, distance correction type of processing and then reconvert back to analog outs for the amp section.

So, if that's the case, IMO, use a digital connection. No point in going through 3 steps that could all possibly degrade the signal when you can do just one.

Now, if you're just concerned about this for music and are purely 2 channel and can use a bypass or direct mode, then there really isn't a need.

Bryan

 

[videobruce]

If the player has a better DAC than the receiver

I don't use any of the 'gimmic processing' other than the Dolby Pro Logic. Is there a DAC involved there? This is a older receiver with no digital inputs.

 

[Nick250]

I don't use any of the 'gimmic processing' other than the Dolby Pro Logic. Is there a DAC involved there? This is a older receiver with no digital inputs.

If you post the brand and model number, you could get a more exact answer from us. As with most audio sound issues it really depends on what sounds best to you and for me that is a trial and error process. That being said, the digital domain opens up more possibilities, like bass management, but if you are a two speaker only person with no sub, I doubt that a new receiver would be much of an upgrade.

Nick

 

[videobruce]

It's a 13 year old Onkyo TX-SV525 which, if I remember, was their top end receiver
($500 at the time which I got at dealer cost since I worked at the store that sold it).

 

[MDS]

I used to have a TX-SV525. It is ProLogic only as I'm sure you know...

Because the receiver has analog inputs only, the dvd player will decode a DD 5.1 stream and downmix it to 2 channel stereo. The receiver will thus only see a 2 channel analog signal and apply ProLogic processing to it.
- ProLogic is really 4 channels because the surrounds play the same information (unlike ProLogic II where the left and right surrounds will be different if they were different on the disc.)
- ProLogic also limits the frequencies to the surrounds (I think the high end is limited to 7 kHz).

If you had a digital connection, the 5.1 discrete channels would arrive at the receiver and be sent to their respective speakers exactly as the sound engineer intended. You also get the benefit of features like dynamic compression ('late night' mode), cinema filter, bass management as bpape descibed, etc.

If you only have 2 speakers though, buying a receiver with digital inputs won't be of much value.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have a older audio receiver that works fine (other than the lousy user interface) with only analog inputs. I haven't bothered to upgrade since it would be one more piece of equipment I would have to sell since I have no other use for it. Since I wouldn't get squat for it, I have kepted it.

Coming from a HD TV, HD DVR, CD player, DVD player using an analog path to the receiver and comparing that to getting a new receiver with digital inputs is there really a difference regarding:

1. The basic 'audio' (sonic) quality: tonal range, dynamic range, imaging etc.
2. Separation and surround sound effects (I'm not using a subwoofer or center channel speakers).

I know how hyped "digital" everything is these days and I question if it is really better especially considering all the compression & processing of most sources??

Well, prologic is a matrixed sound processing system with all the channel info mixed down into two channels and then the processor tries to direct it to the right places, correctly.
A similar analogy would be a composite video signal was not composite from birth but the RGB. Then, the TV tries to separate it back to the original self. Much better results when all those steps are eliminated.

You don't have a center channel or a sub. Are you interested in those advancements? If not, stay with what you have.

Have you listened to a proper 5.1 setup?

 

[videobruce]

- ProLogic is really 4 channels because the surrounds play the same information (unlike ProLogic II where the left and right surrounds will be different if they were different on the disc.)
- ProLogic also limits the frequencies to the surrounds (I think the high end is limited to 7 kHz).

I understand that and your correct about the 7kHz limit. When I got the receiver I thought Pro Logic was 2 channel rear, not mono as was plain Dolby SS.

If you only have 2 speakers though, buying a receiver with digital inputs won't be of much value.

I have two small rear speakers. No center or sub (which I don't want).

If you had a digital connection, the 5.1 discrete channels would arrive at the receiver and be sent to their respective speakers exactly as the sound engineer intended.

Ok that is for DVD which isn't that important to me. How about TV audio HD and SD?? Does the above still apply??

A similar analogy would be a composite video signal was not composite from birth but the RGB. Then, the TV tries to separate it back to the original self. Much better results when all those steps are eliminated

I understand that, but how about all the processing along the way (compression) and the possibility/probablity od DACs' used because a facility can't pass a pure digital steram along due to lack of equipment?

I question if the receiver is the weakest link in the chain (other than speakers).

 

[videobruce]

You don't have a center channel or a sub. Are you interested in those advancements? If not, stay with what you have. Have you listened to a proper 5.1 setup?

No to all three.

Regarding the center channel, the reason I don't have or want one;
1. I have no 'hole' between the L&R that needs filling in (sonically)
2. One one thing to setup and go wrong
3. No place to put it
4. Unneeded expense
5. This isn't in a dedicated media room
6. If you have decent main speakers you shouldn't need it.

As far as a subwoofer,
1. I can hear where the 'boom' is comming from with a subwoofer. If it isn't placed between the L&R front speakers it is distracting. Sound is comming from somewhere else.
2. See #2-6 above.

 

[MACCA350]

No to all three.

Regarding the center channel, the reason I don't have or want one;
1. I have no 'hole' between the L&R that needs filling in (sonically)
2. One one thing to setup and go wrong
3. No place to put it
4. Unneeded expense
5. This isn't in a dedicated media room
6. If you have decent main speakers you shouldn't need it.

As far as a subwoofer,
1. I can hear where the 'boom' is comming from with a subwoofer. If it isn't placed between the L&R front speakers it is distracting. Sound is comming from somewhere else.
2. See #2-6 above.

If you don't want a center or a sub, and from the sounds of it you haven't heard a properly set up 5.1 or 7.1 system, then don't bother changing anything, just keep what you have and ignore everything you don't want

cheers

 

[Nick250]

No to all three.

Regarding the center channel, the reason I don't have or want one;
1. I have no 'hole' between the L&R that needs filling in (sonically)
2. One one thing to setup and go wrong
3. No place to put it
4. Unneeded expense
5. This isn't in a dedicated media room
6. If you have decent main speakers you shouldn't need it.

As far as a subwoofer,
1. I can hear where the 'boom' is comming from with a subwoofer. If it isn't placed between the L&R front speakers it is distracting. Sound is comming from somewhere else.
2. See #2-6 above.

Bruce, I am not making a recommendation of what you should or should not do. It's your system and whatever pleases you is the "best" setup. A clarification point on subs and music. IME, when properly set up and integrated to a system, the only audible way you know a sub is there is by it's absence. You will notice that the "foundation" is missing for want of a better word. There will be no boom or directional component to the subs presence. "Properly set up" being the operative issue. It is often a pain and the best location for a sub might not be feasible for your particular room.

Nick

 

[videobruce]

"Properly set up" being the operative issue. It is often a pain and the best location for a sub might not be feasible for your particular room.

I understand that which is why I don't want one since I feel it can't be placed properly without being in the way.
This is a 15 x 15' Living room. The sectional and the equipment are at opposite corners on a diagonal. The four speakers have very limited placement options.

 

[BMXTRIX]

If you are watching TV, you should have a center channel and a subwoofer. There is a reason the audio is mixed at 5.1 chanels and about 90% of all dialog will originate from the center channel.

Why a center? Sonically, the center channel is placed as close to the center of the screen as possible. Right up against the bottom or top of the display. As you walk around the room, the voices which come from the center channel won't drift left or right as they will when you ghost a center channel by using your main L&R speakers. While this may not mean much for music, for video - as basic as the news - to HD sports and movies, this becomes more and more apparent as a sonic advantage.

Why a subwoofer? Because you don't have good speakers... as good as they are. Pretty much nobody has a single speaker that can recreate the full range of audio we can hear from 20hz to 20,000hz. The subwoofer is not there to create 'boom'... well, okay, that's not the main reason it is there. The reason you use a subwoofer is that it introduces the presence of a given scene. The dull throb of an engine aboard a ship - you don't hear it so much as feel it, and it is VERY subtle, not loud, just 'there'. The feel of the noise at a stadium during a sporting event. Once again, not necessarily overpowering, but always there - pulling you in. So, not only does every video setup need a sub, it needs a good sub. If your speakers can handle 20hz frequencies with a flat response up to 20,000hz, then you don't need a sub... because you already have one. Likewise, for music, you still need that sub.

Why digital audio? While the above statements are excellent, one of the biggest points of digital audio is that the noise floor on the cabling tends to be far lower than you will find with analog cables in all but the very best of setups. Digital tends to introduce unwanted buzz and hiss into the lines far less frequently, and at far lower levels than analog can ever hope for. So, while there are those who LOVE their record players, they tend to spend thousands of dollars on them to get a very minimal improvement on what someone with a $50.00 CD player achieves using a digital connection.

Now, what you have, how it matters, what you want to upgrade, what benefits you want, etc. are all up to you. But, don't think that there aren't reasons that people specifically install 5.1 and 7.1 audio setups into theaters. Don't for a moment think that there is no benefit from digital and surround setups for video, especially HD video and movies. Forget DVD specifically, any movie shown on TV should have some sort of surround processing within it which a proper setup will take advantage of.

Whether you choose to partake, or not, in those advantages is entirely your decision.

 

[videobruce]

Point made.
The limitations of the room, my priorites, my age (I'm not in my 20s') and my hearing will be the deciding factor. I'm convinced that a newer receiver should be on the list, past that I will just have to explore it better.

Thanks for the input. BTW, as far as 5.1 & 7.1 in theaters etc, marketing does have alot to do with it.

 

[MDS]

If you wanted to add a center channel speaker, you could build a corner shelf behind the TV and place it there. It would be back a bit from the top of the TV but if the sound seems too distant you could use PLII Music mode and change the 'Dimension' parameter which moves the soundfield forwards or backwards - but then you would definitely need a new receiver with PLII.

 

[BMXTRIX]

There are also speaker stands that are designed specifically to go on top of DLP/LCD rear projection displays without issue and can hold any number of different speaker types.

The biggest issue people will have with their age is picking up the high frequency sounds. So, that doesn't affect the center channel localizing, nor the effect a subwoofer will have. The beauty of your setup, is a 10" sub of decent quality likely would fit behind the rack.

Yes: $$$ is ALWAYS a real and serious concern and should be.

5.1 and 7.1 does have marketing issues, but the effect of being immersed in sound with true discrete audio channels is very real and very noticable in a good setup. Most people throw 7 speakers in a room and don't get why they arent' all working - all the time. That's not surround. Surround is there to enchance the experience more than it is supposed to take over the experience. But, most people go far cheaper with surrounds than with mains and the center channel. The center channel is arguably the most important speaker in a video setup. The sub IMO, is next on that list. I would ditch surrounds in a second for a good sub and center channel.

 

[videobruce]

PLII Music mode

Ok, whats that other than what you described?

There are also speaker stands that are designed specifically to go on top of DLP/LCD rear projection displays

I'm aware of this, but I really don't want a speaker on top of the set.

I have read and was always told properly placed L&R speakers witll not have a 'hole' in the middle. If this is the case, why do you need a center channel when a properly placed main pair will fil the hole in. To me. I just can't see a center channel unless your L&R main pair are very far apart. If the phasing etc. is proper between the front pair, I don't understand why you need that center. You sure as hell didn't with stereo. Before you tell me this isn't stereo, if you forget about the rears and sub, just what is the difference between the audio comming from the front??

Or to put it another way, why can't a properly placed front pair work reasonably well? (Notice the emphasis.) I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just don't feel it is that necessary as I'm not looking for perfection, just something halfway decent and a noticeable improvement over what I have now since everyone has convinced me to at least upgrade my receiver.

 

[Swerd]

I have read and was always told properly placed L&R speakers witll not have a 'hole' in the middle. If this is the case, why do you need a center channel when a properly placed main pair will fil the hole in. To me. I just can't see a center channel unless your L&R main pair are very far apart. If the phasing etc. is proper between the front pair, I don't understand why you need that center. You sure as hell didn't with stereo. Before you tell me this isn't stereo, if you forget about the rears and sub, just what is the difference between the audio comming from the front??

Or to put it another way, why can't a properly placed front pair work reasonably well? (Notice the emphasis.) I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just don't feel it is that necessary as I'm not looking for perfection, just something halfway decent and a noticeable improvement over what I have now since everyone has convinced me to at least upgrade my receiver.

Hi videobruce

I'm coming into this thread late, but I want to emphasize that while you are right in that properly performing and located L & R speakers should work fine, that is only with a 2-channel stereo signal. Digital home theater is recorded with 5 (sometimes with 6) discreet audio channels. One of them is the center channel. In most DVD movies the dialog is located almost entirely in the center channel. In systems I've personallly heard, I've heard the dialog much more clearly than in those systems where a center channel was omitted. I older dolby pro-logic surround sound systems, the center channel was synthesized (matrixed) by the receiver from a 2-channel source. In my opinion, the 5 discrete audio channels available through digitally recorded DVDs are an undisputed improvment over any older way of reproducing movie audio.

 

[videobruce]

I understand that and my question is;
Do the newer receivers have a "phantom" mode to replace the center channel as my current receiver does? IOW's can they send the center channel to the front L&R in mono and still retain the separate front L&R channel infromation?

 

[BMXTRIX]

I understand that and my question is;
Do the newer receivers have a "phantom" mode to replace the center channel as my current receiver does? IOW's can they send the center channel to the front L&R in mono and still retain the separate front L&R channel infromation?

Yes, but creating a phantom center channel from your left and right speaker will only allow the perfect effect when a listener is at the primary viewing position. If you have viewers to the left or right of that location, then phantom center will drift that direction (left/right) as they are then closer to those speakers recreating the center sound, and the sound stage will shift accordingly.

So, instead of a voice coming from the center of the display, people not in the primary listenng postion, may hear a phantom center that seems to originate from the left of the display, or the right of the display, instead of the center. With a center channel, it doesn't matter where people sit for the dialog will always be properly focussed on the center of the display. Yes, as they move off center, other characteristics will shift because they will be closer to other speakers, but the 90% of dialog will properly come from the display, as it should.

Hope that makes sense.